Please read a mini case on page 302, chapter 9 and provide the answers to the following questions: What are some of the major complexities encountered in developing cooperative strategies such as strategic alliances and joint ventures?
What role does competition from rivals play in the eventual success of cooperative strategies? Please explain.
What costs are incurred in developing strategic alliances? How can these costs be managed?
Should cost minimization or opportunity maximization be the primary goal of a cooperative strategy? Can both be achieved simultaneously? Why or why not?

Following are the solution to the given question:

Explanation:

For question 1:

The Strategic Alliance provides several multi-faceted relationships between organizations, spanning intricate, short-term collaborations to long-term, organized contracts. A split is a reflection of strategic partnerships. Because as the margin requirement concept indicates, businesses could be having problems in the process, such as deciding on the need for a coalition, to join the alliance to minimize the transaction risks incurred in a new market. A business needs to determine whether it will be prepared to invest money and cash if it can shift from a strategy to cost control towards a diverse strategy to improve productivity.

The additional complication occurs if you select a partner. The partner should respect business activities and clearly defined limits i.e. Each partnership should have defined goals, goals, or contributions. A partner can also seem opportunist, misinterpret commitment or question the availability of devoted resources. An alliance is difficult to create, but it is a hard task to manage. The cultural differences between the two companies can be a very complicated subject. For example, export privileges, taxes, scaling gaps, capabilities, decision-making type, reporting standards are the major problems.

For point 2:

Its core of competition helps to explain whether an organization's almost cooperative tactics are to avoid this rivalry. Each member must contrast the capital provided by such a partnership with the competition. It will address important issues, like businesses behind the market or before them? How are those entities trying to manage one another to continue to grow? And on and on. So, It will give a consistent purpose or reason to an alliance.

It was not a tactical but a political reply. Competing companies for the same market may develop alliances that are referred to as Co-opetition to its growth. Toyota and GMC vehicles were jointly built in such a joint venture by NUMMI, enabling Toyota & GM to improve Toyota's technology development for entry into the United States. NUMMI has been helping both businesses with economies of scale and scope.

For point 3:

Companies bear considerable costs when structuring a planned relationship and monitoring. They will exam fees whether they follow a chance maximization plan or divide the risks. For example, in and around the 1990s, Kodak and Fuji created films with Nikkor, Canon, and Konica, in collaboration with image sensors, to develop an effective camera with a picture machine. It helped the industry to expand a busy market commodity. Nevertheless, it benefited from the partnership, since it shared expenses through developing a typical market item and reduced risks if either of it had been manufactured novel, but just not suitable, prototypes.

For point 4:

It focuses on the level of trust engaged in a collaborative strategy for each participant. When one of the businesses appears to also be opportunist, cost minimization would be simple as a primary aim, as this would then implement a definite contract that would minimize any cash misuse or gain the partner's tactical skills. The research examines the time benefit of trust and the chance of success between the two organizations. This is the foundation for a chance optimization approach. The agreements are not as strict as it is in the cost reduction method and so fewer expenses are necessary to execute these.

answer blank(1).(2); sharpe;